Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Hassan-

Rafida debates Mohammad hijab

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

:salam:

Since both participants will be checking this thread today to cense opinions, here's mine.

M. Hijab gesticulating out of enthusiasm and arrogance - 0'57 guy lost his nerve upon sahabi.  

Rafidha staying too much focused on Hijab's mistakes rather than moving ahead.

 

Seriously, where can you bring the discussion about Shia vs Sunni, when a sunni only expects you to bring Qur'an + Sunni sources, and when those Sunni sources were built on eradication of Shia values....

 

Point made by Rafida at the beginning about Tawhid was better and smarter. The issue of Imam ali and Ahl el beit (as) being usurped was an approach that would have lead somewhere too. 

Everything that comes after these, is just the result of historical distorsions from both sides, and that can never conciliated again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, a believer said:

Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to refute existing points in Hijab's previous video? It was not to engage him in newer topics that he kept dragging into the discussion, seemingly to avoid addressing the Shia's responses.

The Sunni guy went off topic a few times I agree, but the Shia guy just never stepped up. If the topic is being dragged out, the Shia guy should have went along and put the Sunni guy in his place. Many arguments the Shia could have used to put the Sunni guy in his place, but instead the Shia guy decided to stay on topic which yes is the right thing to do but he should have played the same game and went offensive as well. When the Sunni guy said where in the Quran does it mention the Imams, the Shia guy never mentioned all the verses that prove imamat, or ahadith from sunni sect that prove ghadir khum. Just way too many things he never mentioned. It isn't that hard to refute sunnis, their whole madhab is flawed and easily refutable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DigitalUmmah said:

Just seen the whole video.

Yes Im biased towards shia, but lets understand the tactics used by the hijab guy

- this debate was specifically about the content of his video. He knew and had plenty of time to prepare since there was a lot of background organisation. Its not a case of him claiming he only had 2 days. In fact it was him who approached the team at rafida.org. he knew full well he was going to be defeated, so prepared about a million strawman arguments to distract from the points of the discussion.

Sayed shobayri stuck to the verbal agreement and prepared to discuss the video. Hijab came with points not related to the video, which sayed shobayri wasnt prepared for. Thos isnt a victory for the sunni, it just (yet again) demonstrates their treachery and lack of akhlaaq. You just cant trust these people to be honourable.

A perfect example of this was hijabs reliance on the mistranslated book by sayed khomeini. All he had to do was say "sure, i will admit the source was not reliable" but instead he went on the offensive and completely blew past the point, instead talking about shia chains of the quran etc. 

- He was way more eloquent than sayed shobayri, and had a better strategy such as standing up, using his hands while speaking, energy in his voice etc. For a lot of people this counts more than the facts or the truth. Its why politicians are voted in by their appearance. Sayed shobayri came for an academic discussion. Hijab came for a show. The sunni didnt even bring a single book. Unfortunately most people will judge based on showmanship.

- the salafi storming in was clearly a set up by hijab. It was a private meetimg that most shia didnt even know about in a secluded location. Did those wobblers "randomly" walk past and notice shia? Hijab could barely keep the smirk off his face. He was fully aware all along "i thought they were with you" seriously? Allahs curse upon the liars.

- there should have been a moderator. As soon as hijab started going off on a tangent, the moderator should have intervened. 

So in terms of actual academic discussion, akhlaaq and truthfulness, the shia won by a mile. But in terms of showmanship & hot air and drama, which unfortunately what the non shia only know how to judge on, hijab won.

I would suggest next time a moderator is chosen, a neutral aadil, to ensure the agreed upon topics are stuck to, and each side only responds to direct questions. Sayed shobayri didnt cover himself with glory when directly challenged why shia use sunni chains regarding the complilation of the quran.

Its a learning curve though, no harm done. i think next time will be better inshaAllah

:salam:

Perfectly summed up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He should not have done the debate based on those terms. There should have been a moderator, and when the Salafi started violating the terms of the debate, he should have said 'I will not continue unless you stick to the terms agreed upon'. And then left the debate if he continued. The Salafi would have said that he won and the guy walked out because he was losing, but we have video, so people could have made up their minds based on that. 

Seriously, when I was in college, I was on the speech and debate team. If a debator didn't abide by the agreed upon terms for the debate and kept going off topic like the Salafi guy did, the debate would have ended fairly quickly. We shouldn't debate unless terms are agreed upon, topic is agreed upon and both parties stick to the terms of the agreement. Otherwise, it devolves into nonsense and shouting, which favors the Salafi's and not us because their religion is based on nonsense and shouting and not on facts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rafida channel should not be representing us. I must warn you all about this channel, their methods, and their rhetoric, and they do not represent us, but go into extremes. 

I've spoken out directly and warned Mohammed Hijab about this. Unfortunately, we have yessir habibites rife on youtube, with their channels, and God knows where they get the money or funding for these things, ruining our name and causing major conflict as well as rift.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

The Rafida channel should not be representing us. I must warn you all about this channel, their methods, and their rhetoric, and they do not represent us, but go into extremes. 

I've spoken out directly and warned Mohammed Hijab about this. Unfortunately, we have yessir habibites rife on youtube, with their channels, and God knows where they get the money or funding for these things, ruining our name and causing major conflict as well as rift.

Brother you aren't fair, you can see from the video that the brother in the debate is level headed and has good akhlaq,  whereas there were several issues with the way Muhammad Hijab handled himself, not to mention bringing along thugs, which says more about him than his debating tactics and his subtle (or not so subtle) digs at his opponent.

Of course as they are Shirazis there will always be points of disagreement, but there is no reason to assume that every muqalid of Sadiq Shirazi is the same I can point to many who are fair and level headed.

And also in all fairness they are just responding to videos, people like Muhammad Hijab are the ones making inaccurate videos claiming that the Shi'a believe such and such. 

Edited by Ali_Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Ali_Hussain said:

Brother you aren't fair, you can see from the video that the brother in the debate is level headed and has good akhlaq,  whereas there were several issues with the way Muhammad Hijab handled himself, not to mention bringing along thugs, which says more about him than his debating tactics and his subtle (or not so subtle) digs at his opponent.

Of course as they are Shirazis there will always be points of disagreement, but there is no reason to assume that every muqalid of Sadiq Shirazi is the same I can point to many who are fair and level headed.

And also in all fairness they are just responding to videos, people like Muhammad Hijab are the ones making inaccurate videos claiming that the Shi'a believe such and such. 

I understand where you are coming from, but in cases where shia islam is my pain priority, i care more about the perception and argumentation used on our side, than the shortcomings of the other side.

There is no doubt the salafi's are the ones who went on the attack with their videos from the start. Although Muhammed Hijab has been far more milder than most of them.

The problem with having people of this ilk representing us is that their views are often extreme, they don't have tact and are inflammatory, and they justify every ghuluw-type thing, from self-mutilation to other things. They don't represent me, nor have the basirah in my view, to represent the mashab of the Ahlulbayt asws as an organisation, and from being quite involved in polemics, it is like scoring an own goal for us.

The individual representing us in the video may not be the major problem here, so much as the organisation he represents and their methods, whose videos are inflammatory. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Wow, the shia scholar is explaining that their own ulemas belief in Tehrif, So, why all of you guys did not listen to that. It is an informative video. 

Their own Ulema do not believe in Tahrif. Using this line of argumentation against the salafi's/sunni's is a weak one. We just have to be upfront and admit, a small minority of shia ulema made a massive ijtihad error and wrong judgement in believing what they do, in that verses of the original Quran that were recited and meant to be kept there were removed by the devious work of the authorities/a conspiracy.

What we need to do is show the narrations in our books are weak and or misunderstood / khabar al wahid like the 17000 verses in cases,  and that the majority of our scholars do not believe in this sort of tahreef.

We should also the go on the attack about salafi-tawheed.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Intellectual Resistance said:

Their own Ulema do not believe in Tahrif. Using this line of argumentation against the salafi's/sunni's is a weak one. We just have to be upfront and admit, a small minority of shia ulema made a massive ijtihad error and wrong judgement in believing what they do, in that verses of the original Quran that were recited and meant to be kept there were removed by the devious work of the authorities/a conspiracy.

 

Saying that they do not believe does not mean that they did not believe. Did not you listen that He said that Uthman has one huruf Quran and there were other huruf Quran burnt by him, so which one is real while Uthman cannot be said to be an infallible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Their own Ulema do not believe in Tahrif. Using this line of argumentation against the salafi's/sunni's is a weak one. We just have to be upfront and admit, a small minority of shia ulema made a massive ijtihad error and wrong judgement in believing what they do, in that verses of the original Quran that were recited and meant to be kept there were removed by the devious work of the authorities/a conspiracy.

 

Our Ulemas did not made any mistake. Shia scholar is already saying that 17000 verses were along with Hadith-e-Qudsi and it is a well known fact that a great portion of Hadith-i-Qudsi is not part of Quran. So, Ulemas said what they received from narrators. He is just trying to come over again without acknowledging that he made a false video and lied against Ayotullah Khomeini and said a 19th century scholar as Classical Scholar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sindbad05 said:

Our Ulemas did not made any mistake. Shia scholar is already saying that 17000 verses were along with Hadith-e-Qudsi and it is a well known fact that a great portion of Hadith-i-Qudsi is not part of Quran. So, Ulemas said what they received from narrators. He is just trying to come over again without acknowledging that he made a false video and lied against Ayotullah Khomeini and said a 19th century scholar as Classical Scholar. 

Alama Majlisi believed there were verses of the Quran the Prophet [saw] recited and did not abrogate, and intended to remain part of the Quran but due to a conspiracy, were removed and distorted. 

Forgive the pathetic youtube channel and listen to the words of Sayed Kamal Hayderi:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, he is saying why are you asking about Khomeini since you are Sherazi ? Is that an argument ???? Khomeini was a Shia Scholar and he lied against him and not admitting him that he lied about him and saying that it is Khalas ? Lolz why he did not admit that he did it wrong or at least call it a mistake and excuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Saying that they do not believe does not mean that they did not believe. Did not you listen that He said that Uthman has one huruf Quran and there were other huruf Quran burnt by him, so which one is real while Uthman cannot be said to be an infallible. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Alama Majlisi believed there were verses of the Quran the Prophet [saw] recited and did not abrogate, and intended to remain part of the Quran but due to a conspiracy, were removed and distorted. 

You bring about a video which is in Arabic and which is being translated by Anti-Majos ? How can it be trusted since I see that above person is not reliable as well ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

You bring about a video which is in Arabic and which is being translated by Anti-Majos ? How can it be trusted since I see that above person is not reliable as well ? 

The translation is reliable enough to get the fair meaning of Sayed Kamal Hayderi is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

Alama Majlisi believed there were verses of the Quran the Prophet [saw] recited and did not abrogate, and intended to remain part of the Quran but due to a conspiracy, were removed and distorted. 

Forgive the pathetic youtube channel and listen to the words of Sayed Kamal Hayderi:

 

I believe that one of the sentence has been fabricated where this Alim has been translated which one to follow "Quran or narrations" ? And it is translated as "Have narrations but do not Quran", where it is well documented in our Fiqh Books that Imam Jafar al Sadiq a.s advised us to read this Quran and we hold it as primary source of Shariah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

The translation is reliable enough to get the fair meaning of Sayed Kamal Hayderi is saying.

Hahahaha, yeah, I believe you that it is reliable ? And should I also believe you that you are a Shia ? lolz 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Sindbad05 said:

Hahahaha, yeah, I believe you that it is reliable ? And should I also believe you that you are a Shia ? lolz 

I am most definitely a shia, but i know that unless i am objective and truthful , i could have been born a sunni and remained a sunni, a christian and remained so. What is the difference between me and anyone else who i say is not upon the truth if i don't fairly and objectively analyse arguments? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I've spoken out directly and warned Mohammed Hijab about this.

What exactly did you warn him about?  

As far the rest of your posts you are employing the same tactic as Muhammad Hajib , not sticking to the topic. This thread is about this debate particularly,  can you just stay on the topic please instead on using this as an opportunity to drag yasser habib and tatbir into the discussion.

And again, I would really like to know what exactly did you warn him about.

Edited by starlight
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, starlight said:

What exactly did you warn him about?  

As far the rest of your posts you are employing the same tactic as Muhammad Hajib , not sticking to the topic. This thread is about this debate particularly,  can you just stay on the topic please instead on using this as an opportunity to drag yasser habib and tatbir into the discussion.

And again, I would really like to know easy exactly did you earn him about.

I have addressed the arguments raised to some degree about tahreef on this thread. Additionally, an important part of a debate is the credibility of the organisations debating and so i feel it is only fair for me to list my grievances over the side who are representing us.

Muhammed Hijab is one of the more mild and respectful sunni's , whereas the Rafida channel employ methods which go against the advice of the majority of our ulema, who especially warn us not to do the daft thing of abusing and insulting their revered symbols, or discussing sensitive matters which will only rile people up and cause drama. Furthermore they represent only one extremist element of shia islam, and in that way, do not represent me. 

I have spoken out about the Rafida channel from their very inception.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is not aware of the nuances of polemics , especially of these debates, in addition to the overarching context of the debates and the individuals who are debating, won't understand why i am frustrated and do not associate nor encourage this debate.

The salafi community is fractured, with the moderate salafi's like Muhammed Hijab, Adnan Rashid, et al, calling for a more civil way of debating shia's.  Dawahman, and those even more extreme than him call for a much harsher approach. 

When the 'Rafida' channel, and their abusive videos towards revered symbols are shared, along with their very volatile tones, Dawahman and those more extreme than him will have the canon fodder they want, and will make the more moderate salafi's feel a little silly for breaking away from the extremists.

Additionally, extremist shia's of this age have terrible methodology in debates. They often defend ghuluw -type concepts, use very one dimensional and easily refutable arguments against sunni's which make us look quite bad [as if it were representative of our views], and are linked to groups which curse a number of our own ulema, and seek to cause divisions among the shias.

Take heed, those of you with insight, and i dissociate from this group.

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, a believer said:

Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to refute existing points in Hijab's previous video? It was not to engage him in newer topics that he kept dragging into the discussion, seemingly to avoid addressing the Shia's responses.

I agree, that Muhammed Hijab video on shia islam, as polite as he was, was based on very weak points and arguments and so he felt he had to jump onto other points, which in my eyes is only natural given the debate is about shia islam and our beliefs verses theirs.  But in my eyes, i don't want to give this 'rafida' channel any platform to represent us.

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People need to realise a small minority of shia scholars made an enormous error of judgement, including the architect of the savafid shia empire, Alama Majlisi, who great as a scholar he was, with due respect, was responsible for introducing innovation and supporting beliefs the ulema of the present day on consensus [and if there is an Ulema that actually upholds Majlisi's view, alert me, because they deserve to be named and refuted on all fronts] believed the Quran underwent tahreef.

Let us also not play word games here, Tahreef has many meanings, but i don't think anyone who is just can deny he believed there were verses that were not abrogated, supposed to be there, but were removed due to a conspiracy.

This is the same scholar, he and or his father, who were responsible for introducing many innovations into mainstream shia islam, not least, the wide acceptance of adding the third shahadah into the adhan, which ironically according to Shayk As Saduq [rh] originated from the ghulat [may Allah punish them close to what he will do to Yazid, lanatullah alyhim].

We need to stop running away and using weak arguments such as Uthman having one codex and burning others [ which is easily addressed] in response to a catastrophic error of judgement made by a small minority of shia scholars.  

In my eyes, Shaykh As Saudi [ra] is our greatest scholar. From defending Tawheed, refuting the accursed Ghulat [though not everyone he refuted in this way were ghulat] to rejecting baseless and incorrect concepts like Tahreef [as i have defined it]. If every scholar had the same foundation he had in these aspects, shia islam may have grown to spread far more widely.

 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I have addressed the arguments raised to some degree about tahreef on this thread. Additionally, an important part of a debate is the credibility of the organisations debating and so i feel it is only fair for me to list my grievances over the side who are representing us.

Muhammed Hijab is one of the more mild and respectful sunni's , whereas the Rafida channel employ methods which go against the advice of the majority of our ulema, who especially warn us not to do the daft thing of abusing and insulting their revered symbols, or discussing sensitive matters which will only rile people up and cause drama. Furthermore they represent only one extremist element of shia islam, and in that way, do not represent me. 

I have spoken out about the Rafida channel from their very inception.

 

Hijab, Dawahman and Antimajoos are clearly the same crew. Just look at Abbassi's interview by Hijab...

Hijab's "more respectful" attitude towards laymen shias is false akhlaq in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, realizm said:

Hijab, Dawahman and Antimajoos are clearly the same crew. Just look at Abbassi's interview by Hijab...

Hijab's "more respectful" attitude towards laymen shias is false akhlaq in my opinion. 

There is no doubt Muhammed Hijab wishes to refute the shias, but having studied and followed this crew, as well as having spent time around salafi's, i know Muhammed Hijab by his nature is far more well mannered.

He associates with Ali Dawah, and Musa Adnan, as well as Adman Rashid, who all refute and dislike Dawahman on a varying scale. These are moderate salafi's.

Ofcourse, there is still interaction between the moderate and extreme salafi's, and people in-between but i sincerely do not believe he would have allowed those people to attend. It may have been a leak from one of the others. Muhammed Hijab is sincerely trying to defend his belief, and the last thing he wants is to look bad because salafi members go on the attack rudely against shias, which will only make them look bad. He gains nothing from this.

Having watched many of Hijabs videos, i sincerely do feel he is a well mannered individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...